Richardson v. Bly
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Appeal from a decree of the Probate Court for the County of Essex allowing certain instruments as the will and codicil of Elias E. Porter. The case was tried before Lathrop, J., with a jury, to whom the justice submitted the following issues: “First.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a decree of the Probate Court for the County of Essex allowing certain instruments as the will and codicil of Elias E. Porter. The case was tried before Lathrop, J., with a jury, to whom the justice submitted the following issues: “First. Were the instruments offered for probate as and for the last will and testament and codicil of Elias E. Porter, late of Danvers, in said county of Essex, deceased, duly executed by the said Elias E. Porter as and for his last will and testament, and codicil in the presence of three competent witnesses, who subscribed the same in his presence ? “…
1Opinion of the CourtBarker, J.
This case comes here upon exceptions taken by the contestants ujpon the trial by a jury of .the usual issues as to two instruments, the one"propounded for allowance as a will, and the other as a codicil. The exceptions are to the refusal to give rulings requested and to instructions given. There seems to have been no contention that the instruments were not in fact executed and with the required formalities, but the contestants, who were cousins of the testator and his only heirs at law, did contend that he was not of sound mind and that the instruments propounded were procured by the undue…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Cleary v. ClearyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1998
- Willett v. WillettMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1955
- Clifford v. TaylorMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1910
- Snodgrass v. SmithSupreme Court of Colorado · 1908
- Davenport v. JohnsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1902
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.